First you’re outraged about the war on Christmas, then you’re outraged because they celebrate it, and then LLM pulls in the ol’ canard about Muslims. I suspect Mr. and Mrs. Obama are better Christians than you, LLM.

We were 9 trillion in debt when Bush left office. We had less than 6% unemployment.. Debt is projected to be 20 trillion when Pres Obama leaves office. Who gets that wonderful present? Our great, great, great grandkids?

Unemployment rate when Bush left office in January 2009: 7.8 %. Unemployment rate currently under Mr. Obama: 7.8 %.

In 2001, the national debt Bush inherited was around $5.7T, give or take. Some of that debt in 2001 has to be attributed to Clinton, just as some of the debt in 2009 when Obama took office must be attributed to Bush. When W. left office in 2009, the debt was nearly $11T. That’s an increase of 89 percent.

Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, or an increase of about 40 percent. Also, the economy has grown, after it retracted during the lesser Depression, and it will continue to grow.

And what’s behind that increase? Two unfunded wars, historically low taxes, thanks to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and historically low revenues due to the worst financial crash since the 1930s. All part of the aftermath of Mr. Obama’s predecessor. Yes, Mr. Obama has added to the national debt, due to the spending made necessary to attempt to fix the disaster of the previous White House occupant. One of the biggest differences between the two fiscally is the black guy has already cut future spending by $1.5 trillion over the next decade and is trying to raise taxes to help reduce the national debt.

Considering my generation is still paying off WWII, debt is something that gets passed along from citizen to citizen. As do obligations. Like paying retired police officer pensions and teacher salaries and health plans and pensions.

Falling energy prices are disproof of a growing economy? We should hope for rising energy prices instead, like a lot of us hope for rising real estate prices so as to steal from our children’s living budgets?

When a Democrat is in the White House: Falling energy prices are proof that the economy is bad.

When a Republican is in the White House: Rising energy prices would kill the economy.

When a Democrat is in the White House: Obama will give us $5 per gallon gas, and in so doing, ruin the economy. But if energy prices fall back down, it will be proof that the economy is going in the tank.

“We could have $2 gas if Obama would just end those darned environmental regulations. But if we have $2 gas when last year it was $4, that will be our proof that Obama is ruining the economy.”

This is so giggle-worthy that, instead of just ignoring it, I decided it was worth batting around a little, like a kitten whacking a plastic ball. 😉

Energy prices move with the economy….the higher they are, the better the economy.
When people aren’t working, they cannot afford petroleum products, which makes inventories rise. This, in turn, makes the price drop

Much of WH maintenance–such as Xmas trees–is privately funded or donated, not the tax payer bill many articles like to imply. The china and silver used for state dinners were a privately funded expense. Likewise, guest hotel suites on vacations, first lady gowns, and so on, are not publicly funded. The trees and decorations are placed and later removed by a volunteer work force. Essentials, such as security details, are not up to the president’s discretion.
Most of the elaborate holiday decorations are custom (like the gingerbread house) and meant for public viewing; only a part of the WH is residential for the first family.
It’s more about maintaining an image rather than a lifestyle. Every first family has perks which are restrained by a budget allowed by congress, the ones’ who hold the purse strings. Gripe at congress if the first family is spending too much tax money.

Factors like supply variations, speculators claiming that the sky is falling in Africa, summer, winter, people buying more efficient vehicles, appliances, and lighting, and people cutting back on driving and household energy use because prices are so high are only relevant when a Republican occupies the White House.

Seriously, even if that argument tying a transient blip in energy prices to long-term economic direction held any water, the tiny percentage of energy price decline is so within the margins of variation introduced by all of those other variables that to cite it as proof of anything macroeconomic is silly.

But whatever it takes to keep the politics of destruction going. For that, Rupert Murdoch has a blank check just for you..